this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
340 points (87.3% liked)
politics
25321 readers
2717 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A cold fast food burger would have been miles ahead of what we were offered. Democrats wouldn't even say "Genocide is bad, and we shouldn't support it". They continuously gaslight Americans on the economy. They support the bombing of kids, and torture programs. They expand out the Republican's surveillance programs.
It's not a choice of a burger vs shit, it's a vomit vs shit
I think a big issue is that money and religion have deep ties in the US. Taking a hard stance against Israel at that point in time would cost votes in purple states; it was the right thing to do, but it would have lost votes. Given there are full on pacs that track each candidate on how much they openly support Israel I have no doubt they would have used money and influence to push them on it.
I think the issues with the economy were that it was still rocked by Covid and the after effects of it. Not having enough votes in the Senate meant nothing could get passed to help the people. Having the Supreme Court stacked by Republicans meant that even student loan forgiveness was shot down.
Really it’s more like a burger that covered in crap. If we want the burger remade to taste right then Democrats needed to win big in 2024. The opposite happened. Democrats lost House seats, Senate seats, and the Presidency. Any positive change now pretty much requires big wins now in 2026 and 2028 to be big wins for the Democratic Party.
For some perspective on how bad the losses for us were: if Democrats won a big trifecta in 2024, we could have uncapped the House, expanded the Supreme Court and set term limits, done away with the Filibuster to get important legislation passed, and even implemented legislation to tackle Gerrymandering across the nation. Just the uncapped House bit would have made it so elections are won by the Popular Vote.
Yet there seemed enough votes to spend more money on foreign wars, and bailing out their rich friends. There also seemed to be enough political capital to take away the highly popular covid-benefits.
That's why he took that route: So that he could look like the good guy, while not actually fixing the problem.
Only if you think there is nutritional value in the Dems. I sure don't see any.
Why would you expect any of that to happen? They've had the chance to fix these things in the past, and chose not to.
You’re right, as there is always funding available when it comes to international conflicts that relate to US interests, especially when certain Congress members districts make money hand over fist from those deals.
2020 is a prime example of Republicans bailing out their rich friends since they demanded that there be zero oversight for the several trillions of dollars going out to stimulate businesses.
The public is the least likely to get any assistance if there is not a Democratic trifecta, since Republicans notoriously will not cross party lines if it means giving Democrats a “win”. Because Democrats did not have big enough majorities in 2021, they were unable to secure additional Covid aid for people. Namely, having Sinema and Manchin, who are both Independents, did not help as they both refused to join with Democrats on bringing more aid. Meaning it was 48 D - 52 R in the Senate. This gridlocked meaningful legislation from passing.
They tried to pass regularly in the House and Senate, but they didn’t have the votes because Republicans voted against it and Independents like Manchin voted against it. That vote was 49 D - 50 R in the Senate.
So Biden was trying any way he could to get it passed. Biden actually did manage to get some student loan forgiveness passed, but not the mass amount that was hoped for because of the conservative Supreme Court.
I see that there is some value because they are trying to vote in policies that would actually help people, but they lack the votes to actually pass these things. I don’t see that as a fault of the legislators so much as an issue of us previously having given land so much more power than people in this country. When small states like Wyoming have as many Senators as big states like New York or California we end up in these situations where your voice matters more based on where you live.
I do see the Democratic Party itself slowly becoming more progressive as well as with the new influx in voters generally being more progressive than their parents or grandparents. Establishment Democrats are trying to push back against the progressives, since they see it as a threat to their seats, but frankly many of those politicians deserve to lose their seats for being actual do nothings.
Mostly because the circumstances have changed. There used to be more buddy, buddy-ness in Congress, it wasn’t so hyper-partisan or was not visible to the old guard Democrats in Congress. Any guise of playing by the rules disappeared when Republicans broke their own made up rule to let a Supreme Court justice be added to the bench during an election year.
They didn’t have the votes to change many of those things in the past, and up until more of the early-2010s Democrats were still doing Gerrymandering themselves at times.
Agreed. That's why Biden spent his time helping out his military friends, and bombing the shit out of innocent people, instead of helping American voters.
Agreed, and Biden's bailouts were another prime example of the Democrats helping their rich friends too.
Well, that was the excuse they used:
They should have tried negotiating, but couldn't be bothered to. They were busy helping out their friends. Biden also could have extended the covid relief, but chose not to.
Except for all the ways that would have actually worked. He could have just sent out the money, like he did with Israel. But he slow-rolled it, and sent it to the Supreme Court so they could shoot it down, and he could look like the good guy, without actually doing anything
No, they had plenty of votes, but chose to pretend that they were powerless so that they didn't have to do anything. Once again, it was clear that they could get shit done when it came to bombing kids, and helping out their rich friends, but couldn't seem to muster up the energy when it came to the voters.
lolwut? The same party that campaigned with the Cheneys? that said they would keep bombing people oversees? That said they wanted more border controls, and are already backing down on support for LGBTQ+ people?
Yes they did. They just didn't care because it wasn't what their donors wanted.
It’s unfortunate that that’s the society we live in where it’s incredibly easy to rubber stamp arms, but incredibly difficult to rubber stamp aid. The military budget alone is a red flag of sorts for where our priorities lie as a country. I mean, when we have the largest air force and the second largest air force then you know it’s pretty bad.
At the end of the day, Red States don’t want money going to aid, and Red States have a disproportionate amount of power in this country. If it was just Blue and Purple States voting on aid then it would have been passed. There’s a reason that Blue states have progressive programs within the states themselves, but Red states do not have those types of programs. If it was just up to Democrats then we would have more progressive programs in place already.
Is this in reference to the Silicon Valley Bank bailout or US/Israel funding?
Negotiating how though? It sounds like they tried again and again to get Sinema, Manchin, or the Republicans to agree to different stipulations but they were unsuccessful in getting to agree on several points. If they don’t have the votes, they don’t have the power to make those changes. Even if they had 51 votes on certain issues, the Republicans could Filibuster to stop them on specific issues. So there were two main issues stonewalling meaningful change from passing the Senate.
Biden sent out munitions which were already paid for is the thing, from my understanding. The President is not allowed to spend money unless told how it should be spent by Congress in funding bills. The fact that Trump is refusing to spend money how it was approved is blowing over 200+ years of rule following/checks and balances out of the water.
They had effectively 48 votes in the Senate from 2021-2024, that’s not enough to pass progressive legislation. I agree with you that there is broad agreement on support for munitions or for the military, but there is not broad support among the Republican legislators for more stimulus, aid, or progressive programs that help Americans. The fact that Republicans just passed a bill to take away funds for Medicaid should tell you everything you need to know about their platform and who has a majority in the House and Senate right now.
It’s becoming more progressive each year as more people become eligible to vote. The youth are generally much more progressive that the Baby Boomers or Gen Xers for instance. Both from a socially progressive perspective and from an economically progressive perspective. I’m not saying the people in Congress are more progressive overnight, but each election cycle we get a bit closer to people that vote and feel similar to AOC being in positions of power in the Democratic Party.
I mean it’s a bit of both, some of the politicians were personally benefiting and others were being paid not to care or change things. There’s more of a consensus these days among Democrats as a whole to push back against gerrymandering, possibly because it’s become a more well known issue that the voters care about.
To be blunt, I'm not even going to continue this conversation with you. You keep saying that the Dems would do something if they had a chance, but they have had many chances, and chose to do things like bomb kids, instead of help out voters. I've provided the evidence above, and you keep pretending that they were powerless. Quit wasting my time unless you can provide evidence that they are actually trying.
I mean let’s be real here, why are we treating the Dem politicians like some collective that always acts in one uniform way and are all powerful to enact change? The reality of the situation is there is a lot of nuance, there is real difficulties in trying to enact change. There are barriers to getting legislation passed. I don’t like the reality of the situation as much as you don’t, but that’s why I feel we need to change things for the better.
Do I think lots of current old guard neo-liberals sign checks to fund the military without blinking, if it lets them keep their cozy job, uncontested? No doubt. Are there real people working within the Democratic Party to bring positive change? Of course.
Let’s not kid ourselves with sweeping generalizations though that don’t take that hard look at the harsh reality. Bringing positive change federally looks objectively bleak, Red states hold a lot of power and the fact that left leaning people are leaving these states in droves just concentrates the power in these states.
My point is that the Democratic Party is changing, albeit slowly, by virtue of the electorate itself changing. If you want faster change, then we’ll need a new voting system in each state like Alaska and Maine have done. That’s how we get more progressives like Mamdani in power and third parties as well.